Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 JULY 2022

Morris Et Al v Prince Et Al. 2022 ONSC 1291

McLeish Orlando LLP
Explore more from McLeish Orlando LLP

This decision serves as a good reminder that experts need to be impartial to testify at trial.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Lindsay Charles
Lindsay Charles
Author LinkedIn connections

This decision serves as a good reminder that experts need to be impartial to testify at trial. The decision succinctly reviews the Mohan test regarding the admissibility of expert evidence at trial, and the Acid Test in White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co which dictates how to determine if an expert witness is impartial.

This decision determines whether the Defendant's life care expert can be permitted to testify at trial. The Defendant retained Dr. Dan Thompson to prepare a life care plan and to provide opinion evidence on vocation. At trial, Mr. Thompson was also tendered to call evidence as a life care planner and a vocational rehabilitation expert.

On a voir dire, counsel for the Plaintiff sought the following ruling with respect to Mr. Thompson's involvement at the trial:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

The Coldcard Exploit: Why Victims May Have Two Routes To Recovery

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Ontario’s New AI Rules: What Lawyers And Expert Witnesses Need To Know

Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure now include strict amendments requiring lawyers and expert witnesses to certify the authenticity of every citation and authority used in court materials. These new anti-hallucination provisions impose significant penalties for presenting AI-generated fabricated authorities, fundamentally shifting accountability for artificial intelligence use in litigation.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Soloway Wright
Soloway Wright
Article

Plaintiffs Awarded A Total Of $800,000 In Damages For Defamation (Murdy v. Barrette)

A Canadian court awarded $800,000 in damages to a couple defamed by serious false allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct spread through social media. The case examines how factors like the severity of accusations, use of social media platforms, and a defendant's failure to mount a defense can dramatically escalate defamation damages beyond typical awards.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Article

Not Beyond Reproach: Alberta Court Confirms Jurisdiction Over Alberta Energy Regulator

The Alberta Court of King's Bench has confirmed its jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the Alberta Energy Regulator despite a broadly worded statutory privative clause. This landmark decision, arising from Sumerian Oil & Gas's application to stay a suspension order affecting approximately 900 wells, represents one of the first considerations of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent Democracy Watch ruling and may significantly impact future disputes involving AER orders.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
MLT Aikins LLP
MLT Aikins LLP